Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I will give the Treasurer one last opportunity to advise the House whether or not part of the agreement with Labor included a reduction of $800 million for the Clean Energy Innovation Fund. The explanatory memorandum says it did. And so unless the Treasurer disavows the explanatory memorandum, it appears to be that the government is saying to the House, in writing, part of the deal was $800 million coming out of the Clean Energy Innovation Fund. That has been contradicted publicly by Labor this morning, and I am seeking clarification about who is right.

We are being asked to vote on this right now, when there has been no public hearing into the effects of these cuts and we have been given an explanatory memorandum and all of five minutes to examine this deal that has been done. It seems I cannot get a straight answer from the government about what is included in the deal, because the Treasurer seems to be unwilling to confirm what is in the explanatory memorandum or tell us whether what is being said publicly about it is right or wrong. So maybe it is the case that the opposition has been played off a break on this: they think they agreed to something, but in fact they have agreed to something else—in which case the government has got one over on the opposition. Or maybe it is the case that what is in the explanatory memorandum is right, that it is part of an agreement—the word 'agreement' is there—and that the Labor Party agreed to take $800 million from the Clean Energy Innovation Fund, in which case it is Labor who is saying one thing in parliament and saying another thing to the public and the media.

This is crucially important because we are being asked to vote on this right now, with all of 10 or 20 minutes to examine this so-called deal that has been done, and there is an absolute lack of clarity about where the money is going to come from to supposedly save ARENA. I ask again: can the Treasurer confirm that what was in the explanatory memorandum is right? If so, how does that square with public statements being made that there was no agreement to cut the Clean Energy Innovation Fund?

See this speech in context